Talk:Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic/Archive 2

Discussing Jalil' compromise
Jalil, thanks for your compromise idea.

all,
 * I think you compromise version needs to be more developped in order to be more neutral.
 * I would suggest to:
 * Put every thing that is disputed (map, territory, demographics, capital etc.) under a spearate section/box entiteled disputed
 * Make clear that all these things are under Moroccan control.
 * Make clear that the "sadr" is mainly in exile, lives in Tindouf, and only goes to some arid empty parts of WS that it claims to control for ceremonial and propaganda reasons.


 * If you don't see what I mean I can try to develop an example in a test page.


 * Thanks - wikima 19:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * An even better alternative:


 * Take all the sovereignty items from the box (because they are dipsuted and the "sadr" has no control/use of them) and put them in a section in the main article. This way we can have more space to comment and to precise where things stand "excatly". E.g. population: 1) A part only is under control of the "sadr" and 2) they live neither in Laayoune nor in Bir lahlou but in Tindouf in Algeria. The box however shows the total approx. number of all sahrawis with a footnoe that none reads.
 * You can think the same for the territory etc.
 * I think this is the best way to edit towards a neutral and explanatory article.


 * Cheers - wikima 07:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

All,
 * Ok, it's the same again. We start a discussion, then no further reaction/interest
 * The POV is there since a loong time for this reason.
 * I will wait until next thursday (01 of March). If no reaction I will start re-editing the article
 * If you're intersted, decisions need the be done after discussion.


 * wikima 14:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Arabic Speaking Country
Substantive question: what is the general standard for inclusion of disputed territories in "X speaking countries lists"? I don't see particular prejudice in including WS in the Arabic speaking list if generically disputed territories are included in such lists. (The question arises re Palestinian Territories, although this is structurally moderately different given non-annexation / "re-integration." It would be nice to have an objective survey of general practice. (collounsbury 20:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC))


 * The "sadr" is not a country. It is a governement in exile.
 * The arab world and the arab speaking world and their institutions & related (Arab League, Islamic Conference etc..) don't include "sadr", and don't recognize it.
 * If you include this entity, you should be ready to include also any other militant organisation into the srab speaking countries list. And this would look absurd and bizarre.


 * Thanks - wikima
 * Listen, I am well aware of its status. The question of substance is how are similar situations treated in this hodge podge of silliness that is wikipedia.
 * As for the Arab League recognising it, well who bloody cares? It's not as if the Arab league is the end all.
 * However, indeed on your last point, yes, if ever militant organisation that has a toe-hold here and there gets included, then one does reach the point of ridiculousness.
 * ERGO: my question of substance, in the interest of fair mindedness - How are similar situations treated here (ex Palestine as different situ re non-Annexation? We answer that, we answer then whether there is fair reason to include or exclude.
 * collounsbury 10:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

Tighter Editing - Removal of Trivia
I have attempted to introduce tighter editing and less of a contesting mish-mash of competing partisan commentary. I remain displeased with the ending, a bunch of special pleadings "oh SADR's been invited to X, Y & Z meaningless mtgs." An extensive meeting by meeting laundry list is special pleading on the part pro-Polisario members, and is langue de bois. It suffices to have a phrase such as "SADR continues to militate for effective and wider recognition, and retains support in XXX bodies, being invited and attending international fora such as (briefly list a few, no need for partisan "oh Morocco objected" - at most conclude with "often/sometimes/usually over Moroccan objections." collounsbury 12:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

Capital
The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic have no particular legitimacy over Western Sahara, therefore no part of Western Sahara belongs to the SADR 'de jure'. That's include the main city, El-Aaiun, which cannot be the capital of the SADR, since the city is controlled by Morocco.

The SADR could claim that its capital is Moscow as well. --Juiced lemon 16:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * POV Claiming that the SADR have no legitimacy over Western Sahara is POV, as it is a matter of dispute and there are claimant states that contradict that assertion. Whether or not Western Sahara belongs to the SADR de jure is a matter of law, by its very definition, and the law of the SADR is that El Auin is the capital. See also Peking (Beijing) as the de jure capital of the Republic of China, even though it is controlled by the People's Republic of China. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The law of the "sadr" does not matter to Wikipedia.
 * They can write in their "constitution" or in the sand that they own the moon, de jure or de facto, this does not matter
 * But you can report that they do such claims (to own the moon).
 * This is how it should be presented with all their claims.
 * But you, you want to build a virtual republic for them in Wikpedia.
 * And this, is not ok!
 * wikima 21:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? What? Does the law of the Republic of China matter? Are you going to address what I actually wrote instead of your cartoonish bombasticism? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We are talking about the fictive republic "sadr"
 * And you devert to China as usual.
 * I don't know the case of China, I don't think its is comparable (China has terriotry and is a diff story) and I don't want to study 199 countries of the world just to understand this Tindoufian entitiy!
 * Please stuck to the topic.
 * Thanks - wikima 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hypocrisy It's funny you should say "stuck [sic] to the topic" when you inserted yourself into the conversation and added nothing to it. It's also funny that you would admit your own ignorance on a topic and then immediately declare that you think it's irrelevant. Wikima, your post doesn't actually get us anywhere in the discussion of this article's content. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * koavf, please do everyone a favor and listen to what was told to you by many editors: Spare all of us all the comparisions between WS and completely different situations: ROC, Palestine, ...etc. The SADR is a self-declared gvt in exile for the Polisario Front. it has self-declared Elaiun as its capital and has self-declared .... many other things. This is an encyclopedia which tells the readers what is factual and encyclopedic. No one cares about what they self-declare in what you called the Law of the SADR. So please keep the facts and the self-declarations separate.--A Jalil 23:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure What is the point of that? Do you honestly think that I'm going to stop making analogies? Jalil, you're wasting your time and mine. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly I think neither the long block nor the short blocks had any effect on you. I honestly think you enjoy having rows with people and that you can not edit in a different cooperative and POV free manner. You can continue to give the comparisions you make. They simply make no point. Remember it when you make them again. --A Jalil 00:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow This is not the first time I've written this, hopefully it won't be the last: if you have some kind of beef with me, please take it to my talk page. This is the talk page about the article "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic." You've added nothing to discussion about this article, Jalil. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"That's include the main city, El-Aaiun, which cannot be the capital of the SADR, since the city is controlled by Morocco."
 * By this logic, you would have no articles mentioning the SADR at all (it wouldn't surprise me if this is actually what many of you want). We should merely state the facts - if the SADR says its capital (uncontrolled or not) is El-Aaiun, then that's what the article should state. If you want to qualify it (as it was, IIRC) with some note that the SADR does not control it, that seems entirely fair. ¦ Reisio 03:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By this logic, if the "sadr" says it controls the whole world, we will ignore the facts and do what "sadr" says.
 * This is the absurdity of this thinking.
 * The "sadr" is not even recognized by the UN, so it can say what it wants (or what the Algerian generals wants is to says), it will remain a self-declared gov. in exile which is hosted in Tindouf by Algeria. For geopolitcal interests of course.
 * In that sense, Laayoune, in a POV free version, is no capital of any thing.
 * And "sadr" has no capital because it has none. Laayoune is simply under Moroccan control, sorry for Polisario and their sympathisants.
 * These are basically the facts, if you are open minded.
 * If not you will continue fighting the reality and trying to build a virtual republicin Wikipedia.
 * wikima 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Stating isn't doing. I suggest a visit to wiktionary.org. ...and the rest of your bullets are even more nonsensical than usual. Y'know, nobody else really reads this stuff except our little group, so please don't feel you have to type up this gibberish on my account - I can just assume you did and we can skip it entirely. ¦ Reisio 03:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * reisio, do you have any thing to add to the exchange/discussion/debate/dispute?
 * If not please be kind and save us from your comments. They're always the same.
 * Thanks very much in advance - wikima 19:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not particularly - my initial statements were logically sound. Cancer just shouldn't be ignored. ¦ Reisio 01:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here we go again. Moutains and molehills. I am going to side with the people who wish to note that Layoune is considered by the entity to be its legal capital, which it's defacto capital is the desert camp. Wikima, let it bloody well go, this is terribly tedious. collounsbury 11:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC).
 * Further point: the present phrasing on the de facto does strike me as POV. Symbolic and temporary. Leave it at de facto without the editorial commentary. collounsbury 12:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

Info Box and Content
Taking my comment of 14 July supra as point of departure, let's stop the idiotic edit warring and get down to nuts and bolts. I don't see the harm in the fuller info box as such (although phrasing on many points strikes me as special pleading and can and should be made neutral). For the anti-Polisario crowd, merely yelling that XYZ is inapplicable to a gov in exile doesn't quite convince me. What is the standard? How does this compare with other situations / usages? The Indiana kid may be fundamentally unreasonable in editing, but in this instance I do not see fair play. (collounsbury 16:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

I'm here to stop a potential edit war here. I see that this edit war results in out of NPOV. Justin, I know you want the POLISARIO to get the Western Sahara independant. I'm also like you, giving moral support to the POLISARIO. But please, this is an encyclopedia, so please make this neutral and put our opinions aside. Putting the previous map is showing support to the POLISARIO. But on the other hand, you people like Abdul Jalil also don't seem to be neutral too! Abd Jalil keeps saying that SADR is a government-in-exile. Well, I think this is just PARTIALLY true, even though the government to situated in Tindouf of Algeria. At least they claim control to the Free Zone! In order to reach the NPOV, I've marked yellow in the Western Sahara map for the Free Zone and uploaded it to the Commons, so that I use it here. Hope that my map is the MOST　NEUTRAL one. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 09:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a bad map, I suppose to addresses several issues. I don't see the issue re government-in-exile, the area controlled is ... well bloody wasteland. Effectively, Polisario is in exile. That's not really POV as it doesn't say anything re being legit or not, merely they don't effectively occupy the claimed country. In any case mate, glad to see a rational and even-handed input. collounsbury 11:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC).
 * Second, since no one seems to want to do comparatives, I took a look at what Tamil Elaam, Kosovo and Kurdistan pages are like. It appears things are all over the map with respect to practice here - surprise surprise partisans are editors. In the near term it would seem reasonable to keep the larger info box, but with respect to information to dial back on, Jalil et al can certainly and should certainly raise issue on POV wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collounsbury (talk • contribs) 11:37, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Flag
Could someone please correct the flag, someone got a little overzealous and changed it/deleted the correct flag. -- Al™ 18:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me if an encyclopedia means propaganda because Wikipedia seems to recognize the so-called SADR more than the UN and any other state. The so-called SADR couldn't dream of a better electronic lawyer/protector. Many thanks Wikipedia for your hard commitment ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.206.255.160 (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is SADR government based in Algeria?
The article indicates that the SADR government controls some of the country...but also says the SADR government is based in Algeria. Its President and PM live there. If the SADR government controls some of the country, why is it not based in that part of the country? I have not researched this question. I think some one with knowldege on the topic should explain the reasons in the article. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * SADR and Algeria The SADR is based in Algeria as a product of the humanitarian crisis instigated by Mauritania and Morocco's invasion of Western Sahara. The temporary capital is in Bir Lehlou and the SADR regularly holds it congresses there. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. The article may need to bring this out more. Essentially, my understanding from your response is that that the Office-holders are based outside the Free Zone because most of the Sahawari people are based in Algeria. I might add this to the article. Redking7 (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * of course for the record the response by Kaovf is partisan and skewed. More neutrally characterised, Polisario effectively lost the armed conflict with Morocco, and has taken refuge in its back-bases in neighbouring Algeria, which has backed Polisario for a variety of reasons at once ideological and state interest. The controlled perimeter is something of a no-man's land of unviable desert. As a practical matter, Polisario sympathisers and tribal allies have little choice but to live in Algeria given the limited terrain in the Sahara, the security situation and their effective dependence on Algeria physical support for maintenance. (collounsbury (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Thanks for that too User: Collonsburu. It would be preferable for this too to be brought out in the article. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mate, trivialities like whether .ma is used for "Western Sahara" websites generates edit wars. I personally don't have the stomach for editing that and then seeing the partisans on both sides haggle back and forth endlessly. (collounsbury (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

Is for special protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.155.32.249 (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bir Lehlou and Tifariti
The Bir Lehlou article starts with "The Bir Lehlou... is a small town in north-eastern". Similarly, Tifariti also starts with "Tifariti is a small town or village located".

What are their populations? Do either actually have permanent populations?

Ideally, some description of economic and social conditions in these places would also be provided.

Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Permanent populations Accurate census data in Western Sahara is basically non-existent. Bir Lehlou and Tifariti both have permanent populations and infrastructure (e.g. the UN has a base in the former.) I do not know more than that off-hand. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply User:Koavf even if it adds no new information or sources. As for the base being evidence that Bir Lehlou has a "permanent poulation and insfrastructure", the base is not supposed to be permanent! I suspect there is information out there. It seems likely the UN has counted how many people live in the village or perhaps the Sahrawi goverhment has. Still, I don't know so if any one does, please post a reply. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Spanish language
I've deleted the name of SADR in Spanish because it is not in any way an official language. The Sahrawi constitution is clear on that: "Article 3 : La langue arabe est la langue nationale officielle." That's the French text but I doubt it needs transaltion. Just in case!: It says Arab is the offical language. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC) And some people from ancient tuareg hassaniya Mauritania before coup d'etat spoke berber languages Th spanish is only the traditional main diplomatic lingua franca. Also is spoken a bit French like elite cultural Language,and more than French English like International Language.
 * I do not know the meaning of the unsigned post above but I would repeat...Arabic is the only official language of SADR. The article accordingly should not include the Spanish name of SADR in the info box. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

state, not government
It's not a government, it's a state. I'm not sure what is going on in your head - it's like I say "Cows go 'moo!'", and then you say "No, Cows go 'yip!'".

After another twenty hours pass, it's going back to "is a state". ¦ Reisio 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I know from the recent experience in 2009 from my Moroccan friend it's an area where you can see Moroccan flags in the so called "capital" of El Aiun on the administrative buildings but just like in the other parts of the world (see The Republic of Abkhazia and The Republic of South Osetia) the compilation of the population is mixed. Therefore some of the inhabitants may like to gain independence (in our case the Polisario front). And there are some independent countries in the world who are supporting such independence mainly for their own benefits (see the interest of the US in the independence of Kosovo to enble George Soros and the company digg in this Albanian region to make money. Or the interest of the Israelis to gain control over their "promised land" which includes also the West Bank and the Gaza strip. And the 1 China policy of the Beijing government with the aim to take control over Taiwan. Sometimes we have to compromise. In the case of The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic we should let this country have it's own government in El Aiun, with the military and foreign policy issues beeing responsibility of Morocco.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.40.205.19 (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As any occupied territory, i.e. Kuwait City in 1991, Paris in 1940... the invaders put their flag on the representative buildings, this doesn´t mean this flag represents the real nation of this land. You must consider 2 kind of "inhabitants" those previous to invasion, and the "new ones" moved as colonial population from Morocco to gain control of the land. Of course there could be external interest in the independence, but, away from this interests, there are several UN resolutions recognising Western Sahara rights to be a nation, starting with the UN asking Spain, former metropoli, for decolonization to a free territory, same as France did with Morocco itself. So as, RASD or WS IS a state, but military occupied yet. 192.28.0.20 (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Tamaran


 * My theory is: its not a state cos most states dont recognise it as one. Its not a government cos its kind of a state. Quite simply, its a wanabee state that can't be described as one at the moment. If you don't give a reason as to why you disagree with attempted compromises, then I see no reason to respect your edits. Where there are conflcits you discuss them on tlak pages. Simple as. Please try and be flexible, as it otherwise leads to pointless conflicts. You can see from above that many people would have problems with calling it a state. Robdurbar 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rodurbar: SADR isn't a state or isn't yet. The SADR don't control the territory and we aren't sure that a majority of Sahrawis want independence (the referendum isn't held yet). It's a self-proclaimed government which isn't unanimously internationally recognized as the legitimate government of WS. This entity isn't recognized by the UN neither by 80% of the world countries. This entity is a state according to 46 countries only, and WP isn't the mouthpiece of those states. Naming it "a state" is inaccurate, biased and misleading considering the sensibility of this conflict. Daryou 00:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Responses Rob: The Palestinian National Authority is undoubtably a state, even if you don't formally recognize the State of Palestine. Also, there is no denying that the Republic of China administers Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu, etc. even if they are not the legitimate government of China. Daryou: The classic definition of a state is from the Montevideo Convention, and requires four criteria:
 * "The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states."

The SADR has a population in the Tindouf camps, the territory is Western Sahara, although only the Free Zone is actually administered, it has a functioning government structure with a written constitution and separate branches of government, and it has entered into relations with other states, such as having and receiving ambassadors. -Justin (koavf), talk 01:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, well I accept it is a state under that definition then but I don't know... I just feel uneasy - not enough to revert it though - with that introductory statement that it is a state Robdurbar 09:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that you mentionned this convention. The Montevideo Convention was a treaty signed at Montevideo, Uruguay on 26 December 1933, at the Seventh International Conference of American States. The convention was signed by 19 states (only), 3 with reservations. What do this convention have to do in our this discussion and what is its real value since the USA which signed this convention didn't and don't recognise the State of Palestine which was proclaimed in 1988?! Daryou 16:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

===>It's a classic example of international law That's why I mention it. At the time, there were only about 50 states, anyway, and why the U.S. doesn't recognize Palestine is because Palestine doesn't recognize (and has generally wanted to destroy) Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. That's well known. -Justin (koavf), talk 17:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the international law isn't written by 19 American States over 190 or ever 50 of the world countries. Plus, this convention isn't relevant since the USA don't apply it. And you know what? the PLO does recognise Israel. Daryou 17:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus, Iran wants to destroy Israel, does it mean that Iran isn't a state or that USA doesn't recognise Iran?!! Daryou 18:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Okay, whatever. Look, international law is written by individual states, since there is no world government. The Convention is relevant, because it is constantly cited as what is a state. The PLO recognizes Israel now, but didn't for several years, and Hamas is still dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state. Plus, even while Arafat "recognized" Israsel, he still ordered terrorist attacks, and the U.S. knew that. Iran does want to destroy Israel, but Iran was also a sovereign state/empire for thousands of years, and the U.S. does not have diplomatic relations with Iran, ever since they took over our embassy and took some of our people hostage. Palestine, on the other hand, has never been a state. -Justin (koavf), talk 21:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Even with interpretations of "state" aside, this entire article is about a state, not a government. If you've got an article on a state, don't call it a government. ¦ Reisio 21:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if the international law is written by individual states, it should be written at least by a majority, it's not the case of this convention signed only by 19 states of America. You say that Palestine was never a state even if it fulfils all Montevideo conditions, isn't it a contradiction?! Daryou 21:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

===>No?! Because it doesn't fulfill requirement (c) government. The Palestinian National Authority is an interim government created by Israel through devolution. -Justin (koavf), talk 21:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that you forget that the State of Palestine was proclaimed in 1988. Daryou 22:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

===>You have to be kidding me You don't need to act so condescending to me. I gave you an honest, respectful answer, and you're acting like a jerk. I remember that the State of Palestine was declared in November of 1988, but do you recall that at the time, it did not control its territory, hence it was not a state. Also, the SADR was proclaimed in 1976, and actually does control some of its territory - are you tacitly saying that it is a state? -Justin (koavf), talk 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that you can't discuss without resorting to personal attacks (you are acting like a jerk), what a pity. There was a territory even if it wasn't controlled by the SP (the Montevideo convention doesn't say that the territory have to be controlled). By the same way SADR didn't control the territory in 1976, did it? Daryou 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Please You're the one who started acting condescending. Don't pretend like this is some grand revelation that I can't discuss without resorting to personal attacks. I tried to be civil, and you wouldn't. The territory must, of course, be controlled by the government in question. I could declare a "Republic of Justinia," claim the entire world, and only control my bedroom, but I wouldn't be a state. The PNA has never controlled their territory, and there has never been a Palestinian state. On the other hand, the SADR has always controlled some portion of its territory, including immediately after Spanish withdrawl, and prior to Moroccan/Mauritanian annexation. If you want to ignore the simple questions that I asked you, or answer them with questions, go ahead, but bear in mind that it only makes your argument weaker. -Justin (koavf), talk 22:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't act condescending unless you prove it. You said: "I could declare a "Republic of Justinia," claim the entire world, and only control my bedroom, but I wouldn't be a state". Polisario declare the SADR, claim the entire territory of WS, and only controls the so-called free zone, SADR isn't a state. Daryou 22:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Okay. Proof:
 * I see that you forget...

Okay, Morocco claims all the Sahara, doesn't control it, and therefore isn't a state, too. It works both ways, Daryou. See, now we've gone nowhere. -Justin (koavf), talk 23:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Originally, the SADR controlled most (I could probably argue for 'all', but I won't bother) of Western Sahara - it took Morocco quite a while and many different wallings to get what they have now. This is irrelevant, however...
 * According to our "state" article...
 * "A state is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty."
 * ...and also according to our "Montevideo Convention" article...
 * "The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states."
 * The SADR satisfies all of these criteria. ¦ Reisio 23:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the SADR has never controlled most or all of Western Sahara. And SADR isn't occupying the definite territory of WS. If SADR was a state then its territory is only the so-called free zone. Daryou 23:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You agree it's a state, then? That's good. Now we can all move on to more interesting things. ¦ Reisio 23:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't agree because the SADR doesn't fulfil the conditions that you mentionned above. Daryou 23:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Which condition does it not fulfil? ¦ Reisio 23:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

First, the Monteveido convention isn't relevant since it was signed in 1933 by only 19 Americain states. Second, SADR doesn't controll the territory (WS), it doesn't fulfil the condition: territory. Daryou 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You've already acknowledged "the so-called free zone". ¦ Reisio 00:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If the SADR isn't a state because it does not controll ALL the territory it claims, then I can't help wondering what Morocco is. An NGO? Arre 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Totally agree, What´s more, Morocco claims Spanish territories too, such as Ceuta, Melilla, Canary Islands and Granada, where never have any control or historical relation, as a battered kid that grow and batter himself, Morocco is an ex-colony thats try to build it´s own empire... [Tamaran] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.28.0.20 (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

===>Here are two blatant examples of how you contradict yourself Also, this is simply untrue: "Well, the SADR has never controlled most or all of Western Sahara." Prior to annexation, they were the only legitimate government in the territory, and if you look at the article on Moroccan Wall, there was a time around 1982 when they controlled 5/6 of the territory. You're either lying or ignorant. I dare you to defend these contradictions. -Justin (koavf), talk 02:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) "The SADR isn't a state, since it doesn't control all of its stated territory." Well, Morocco doesn't either; is it a state or not?
 * 2) "The Montevideo Convention doesn't get to decide who is and isn't a state." But you do? By what authority do you determine who is and isn't a state? That's absurd. The Montevideo Convention is crucial for international law, and you're disregarding it for no apparent reason.


 * First of all, stop lying about history, prior to annexation, SADR wasn't the only legitimate government in the territory, it's completely untrue, the territory was controlled by Spain. I said that SADR isn't a state according to Montevideo convention because it doesn't control the territory and doesn't fulfil all its conditions. Anyway this convention is irrelevant since it was signed only by 19 states from America. You said that international law is written by individual states, great, but it should be at least written by a majority. If this convention is "international law", why isn't it adopted by the UN or some thing like this? It happens exactly that a majority of the world states doesn't recognise the SADR as a state. If SADR was a state, why it isn't recognised as by the UN and by 80% of the world states? Daryou 17:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Lies? What are you talking about? I never said that they were the only government ever in the Sahara, I said that they were the one (directly) prior to annexation. If you're going to call me a liar, you should probably stop complaining about personal attacks yourself. It does conform to the Montevideo Convention - how does it not? Why should international law be written by a majority? Because you say so? That's funny coming from someone who lives under a monarch. The UN didn't exist at the time, by the way. Why isn't Palestine recognized by a majority of the world's states? -Justin (koavf), talk 17:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So according to you International Law has to be written by a minority of the world states and applied to all the others?!! And what does the Moroccan monarchy have to do in this discussion? You say that Palestine isn't recognized by a majority of the world's states, and you already said that Palestine isn't a state, why don't you apply the same reasoning to SADR? Daryou 18:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Again Bear in mind that you explicitly ignored my direct questions, and I'm answering yours. I didn't say that it should be written by a majority or a minority. It simply exists as states engage one another, since there is no world government to enforce it. You are defending the Moroccan monarchy's irredentist annexation, and then saying that international law should be written by consensus. That seems contradictory to me. Palestine isn't recognized by a majority of the world's states, and it also has no territory which is not the case with the SADR. I've explained this so many times already. -Justin (koavf), talk 18:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * All the states aren't forced to apply a convention signed by 19 Americain states only.
 * It's a fact that 80% of the world states don't apply this convention.
 * Are you saying that Palestine has no territory?! What about Gaza?
 * Daryou 18:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

===>I know I'm not saying anyone is forced to do anything, since, as I've stated, there is no world government. Many states do apply this convention, even if they don't apply it all the time and consistently. The Palestinian National Authority has devolved authority from the State of Israel. There has still not been a Palestinian state established. -Justin (koavf), talk 22:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree with you, no one is forced to do anything since there is no world government. A majority of the states of the world don't apply this convention in the case of SADR. In other words, SADR isn't a state according to a majority of the world countries.
 * The Palestinian National Authority possesses the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states: By then it's a state accordig to the MC.
 * Daryou 22:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Daryou, I'm still very interested in knowing what Morocco is. I always figured it was a state, but according to your line of reasoning, it can't be - since it obviously doesn't control all of its claimed national territory. Arre 23:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Palestine and the Sahara Look, the State of Palestine is not a state according to the Convention, because even though it claims a territory, it does not administer it. Do you understand the difference here? The PNA exists as a political compromise by Israel and the PLO, it is not a sovereign entity. The simple fact that most states don't enter into relations with the SADR is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that some do. See also Republic of China, an excellent, democratic, non-corrupt government that has virtually no diplomatic ties. Also, as both Arre and I have asked, is Morocco a state, or not? -Justin (koavf), talk 03:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, Palestine administer the territory, it's a fact. plus, it have a population, a government and foreign relations: so it's a state according to the MC. Anyway this convention doesn't mean anything since it wasn't ratified by the rest of the world states, so the fact that Morocco controls a part or all of its territory doesn't matter since Morocco is unanimously internationally recognised as a state.
 * 80% of the world countries don't recognise this entity, so SADR isn't a state.
 * Daryou 08:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that you're operating under the assumption that Wikipedia should present the POV of the world's majority. That is, in fact, wrong. Wikipedia should present a NPOV, and that means that Western Sahara is a de facto state. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 08:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's not technically true. What (fundamentally) makes a state a state is recognition from other states, as much as any other conditions. So Somalia (and arguably Iraq now) are states without any real government, full control over territory or anything else - but as they are recognised by a majority, they are states. I don't want to weigh in too much on this state/not a state debate - its a unique and highly contestable debate with no clear answer - but had to point that error out (sorry ! :)) Robdurbar 10:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We've still got Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabakh and others presented as "unrecognized de facto states", even though they are not recognized by UN member states... And to boot, Western Sahara is not even "unrecognized", but "partially recognized". Either all of them, or none. I'm in favour of "all of them", since they do govern themselves. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well at the moment the article does describe it as a 'largely unrecgonized state' - which is what I would say it is. I think 'de facto state' isnt actually a state - but this isn't really important here Robdurbar 13:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To respond to Nightstallion's point: first of all WS isn't a de facto state but a disputed territory. I agree with you, WP doesn't have to present the POV of the majority but only NPOV. Well Morocco says that WS is an integral part of its territory, and considers the problem of the Sahara as a struggle for the territorial integrity of the kingdom. Polisario says that this territory should be independant and governed by the SADR. The Moroccan POV is accepted by 2 dozens states. The Polisario's POV is accepted by 47 countries. I agree with you; WP is a source of neutral and reliable information. I will ask you a question and I wish that you will respond me honestly: Do WP have to take a pro-polisario stance in this conflict? IF your answer is Yes, will you explain me why? Daryou 16:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Compare the situation to Abkhazia: Georgia claims Abkhazia as portion of its own territory, Abkhazia claims to have the right to independence and to join the UN as a sovereign nation, and the Wikipedia article presents the factual NPOV that it's currently an unrecognized, but de facto self-governing state. Why can't we follow the same path in this case, which very closely mirrors the Abkhazian example? &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 17:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a major difference: Abkhazia has the de facto control of the territory. SADR has the control of a minor portion which is almost inhabited. By the way, should WP become the mouthpiece of independance movements? Dosen't the voice of countries struggeling for their territorial integrity have the right to be heard? It's a fact that we generally sympathize with independance movements, should we by then convert WP into a court of moral jugement and a tool to promote the POV of those movements? Neutrality is the key word in WP, so let's be objectif and neutral.Daryou 19:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Morocco, and ROC Morocco and the Republic of China don't control all of their territory, but they are still states, right? You know that WP is not nor will it ever be a "mouthpiece of independance (sic) movements;" there's no need to be bombastic. You're obfuscating the issue at hand. As Nightstallion pointed out, accepting that X is true simply because a majority of world governments accept it also is POV. -Justin (koavf), talk 20:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You said: "accepting that X is true simply because a majority of world governments accept it also is POV": by then should we accept that X is true when a minority of world governments accept it?!!!! Daryou 22:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

===>No What I'm saying is, what a majority of world governments accept to be true is not the ultimate barometer of truth. By the way, are you still ignoring what Arre and I asked? Just wondering. -Justin (koavf), talk 00:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I responded already to your question. Anyway this discussion is leading no where, we can't convince each other, it's a real waste of time. Peace. Daryou 07:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

sadr irq rasd
el clerigo muqtada al sadr da lugar to avoid any confusion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.121.159 (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect data
The data about;

1) The size of the area;

2) Population;

3) Population density;

is wrong. The data listed in the infobox, is all about the entire Western Sahara, and not about SADR alone. Could someone please provide the true information, by separating the information from the entire area of Western Sahara and narrowing it down to only SADR's. Thank you! RasmusBE (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Currency
Does anyone know the currency of this sovereign state? RasmusBE (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Sahrawi Peseta. --gribeco (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, Thanks :D RasmusBE (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Former Spanish colony
Per the policy section V:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books."

Waiting for the above. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 07:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I hereby challenge whether you are in fact User:FayssalF—please provide a reliable, published source using an inline citation which supports this information as it is presented in the article. ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Reisio, I am really wondering if you are addressing my concern seriously.
 * "The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) (Arabic: 'الجمهورية العربية الصحراوية الديمقراطية‎) is a partially recognised state which claims sovereignty over the entire territory of Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony."
 * Could you see my point? The former Spanish colony is Western Sahara (see Spanish Sahara). Note that both articles are already under Category:Former Spanish colonies. I am wondering if you could say that the Palestinian Authority is a former Ottoman and British colony instead of Palestine (the territory).


 * The burden of evidence lies with who adds or restores material. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 09:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed addressing your concern seriously… by reverting you. There is no consensus as to whether the area in question is merely "Western Sahara", "Morocco", or "the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic", & the word "former" is imprecise. Consider Category:Former British colonies—was the "United States" a British colony? Did it occupy the same space as the equivalent of British colonies? What was the area between being British colonies and the United Staties? ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This does not seem very helpful. While I can see an argument, merely reverting is not addressing the the concern. (collounsbury (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Lucky for you there's a discussion over here. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes :) there's a discussion reisio but one still has to wonder why it takes a few reverts to get to it. Anyway, I am not interested in discussing something lame that would take more than a few days. Thanks for all anyway. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 11:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You're as responsible for that as I—but if you didn't care, why'd you bother? ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am busy Reisio with other important stuff and have no time for this and I believe reverting is not in my books. I don't remember the time I edit warred. But sincerely, try to improve your edits summaries at least. --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 00:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

…you don't remember last week when you reverted the same edit four times in a row, prompting this talk page section? ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Current ministers
I've removed a section that listed some two dozen current ministers. If you want to put it back into the article, please do so and justify its inclusion here. 98.71.213.249 (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

English Name
So i'm kind of confused as to the word order of the English name; it is a translation of neither the Arabic name nor the Spanish name. Seeing as English is not even in question of being an official language, why isn't it the "Democratic Sahrawi Arab Republic"? The English translation would imply "الجمهورية الديموقراطية العربية الصحراوية" and "República Democrática Árabe Saharaui"; yet neither of those is the Arabic or Spanish name. Does anyone know why this is?? did Sahrawis choose this wording? cullen (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The name of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic - SADR in Spanish is correct, Spanish is the second administrative and diplomatic language of the SADR, the official currency of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic "Saharawi Peseta" comes with text and signs in Spanish and Arabic, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:40000pesetassaharauisoro1997.JPG ), official, diplomatic and administrative documents come with headings, labels and names of the SADR in Arabic and Spanish ( http://www.arso.org/esiscpf.pdf ) of course is right at the infobox call the SADR by denomination in Spanish: "República Árabe Saharui Democratica", is obvious that deserves more discussion, just have to see the sources attached to these links. Enciclopediaenlinea (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Spanish is no longer an Official Language
I have a question ?, why does people keep adding the Spanish language as an official languge of the country, when in fact Spanish has declined as an official language. The current census no longer mentions the Spanish language as an official. The current official language of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is Arabic. Arabic is the national language; 'not' Spanish. If you guys want to add the Spanish language, put it in the 'Language' section, not in the Info-box, because it sounds and looks as if you people are really desperate to mention the language. --Ramírez 11;13 1 March 2007 (UTC) i agree...another editor previously echoed this too and quoted the sahrawi constitution which says Arabic (and only Arabic) is the official language. putting spanish in the info box is plainly wrong. 109.76.199.226 (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The constant putting in of the name ''República Árabe Saharaui Democrática' as if Spanish was official continues. I have deleted it again...84.203.65.121 (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It has never been, I've consulted all the revisions of the SADR's constitution and no never was Spanish an official language, it just gets continuously added by IPs and another user. Apparently some are too excited about their former colony. --Tachfin (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The name of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic - SADR in Spanish is correct, Spanish is the second administrative and diplomatic language of the SADR, the official currency of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic "Saharawi Peseta" comes with text and signs in Spanish and Arabic, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:40000pesetassaharauisoro1997.JPG ), official, diplomatic and administrative documents come with headings, labels and names of the SADR in Arabic and Spanish ( http://www.arso.org/esiscpf.pdf ) of course is right at the infobox call the SADR by denomination in Spanish: "República Árabe Saharui Democratica", is obvious that deserves more discussion, just have to see the sources attached to these links. Enciclopediaenlinea (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject States With Limited Recognition Proposal
There is a proposal for a Wikiproject at WikiProject Council/Proposals/States With Limited Recognition. This proposed project would have within it's scope the 10 "Other States" of International Politics and their subpages(significant locations, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on). The project would help to maintain and expand these articles. If you are interested please indicate your support for the proposed project on the above linked page. This page would be within the Project's scope. Outback the koala (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

interwiki pl
Please add interwiki to Polish Wp.: Sahara Zachodnia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.223.56 (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing Italian page reference
I tried to add the missing reference to the Italian page (Sahara Occidentale) but I got an error: the referred page is already linked or something like that.

I ask please to somebody more skilled than me how can I solve this problem?

Thanks, --Angelo Mascaro (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Map
is it a joke? find a map showing the area they actually control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 07:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, the map is a problem - it shows "as if" SADR actually is controlling the whole Western Sahara, but in fact it had never done that. The most of Western Sahara is under Moroccan control as part of Southern Province. The map should show the actual territory (maybe we can also add "proclaimed" borders of SADR).Greyshark09 (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be consistent with the map of Morocco as shown here.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm strongly opposed to Your proposal. Jan CZ (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much clear, though it would help if you explain why.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Moroccan claims have no international recognition. But SADR has received 85 diplomatic recognitions as an independent State on the entire territory of Western Sahara. And SADR (in the border of Western Sahara) is a full member of the African Union. It is all right, that the boundaries of the territory controlled de facto by Morocco are only in specialized articles, such as Morocco and the Free Zone. Jan CZ (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That Moroccan map should be deleted as soon as possible. If we dont accept a map of Israel with the Palestinian territories included, or a map of Armenia with Nagorno-Karabagh included, why should we accept that?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Nagorno-Karabagh is a bad example, it's an independent state (at least nominally), not a part of Armenia. Even punting aide the NPOV issue with it's almost total lack of international registration, it would not be included in a map of Armenia just as the other Persian Gulf states would not be included in a map of Saudi Arabia. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Spanish "widely used" in SADR
The article claimed that Spanish is "widely used" in SADR. No source, reputable or otherwise was provided. Spanish was once the ruling language of Philippines and other countries...but it is not "widely used" there....Sources ought to be provided to show it is "widely" used today in SADR. 84.203.65.121 (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok an IP has been tendentiously adding Spanish as if it were an everyday communication language when it's not. This needs attention from other editors. If anything French has more importance as higher education is pursued in Algeria where French is the University language and in any case languages of former colonizers is not included alongside native languages when it has no status and most importantly not used in everyday communication. --Tachfin (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Language actually is an administrative language in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, all the official documents and official web sites of this Republic are in Arabic and in Spanish language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enciclopediaenlinea (talk • contribs) 00:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First you need to source that. Second, even it that was the case -which you yet have to prove- it still doesn't make Spanish a spoken/native language. Note that, the official website of the SADR (now defunct but you can check it on archive) was in Arabic only. Additionally, the official website of Oil in Gas in the SADR is in English only. ; the official press agency of the SADR spsrasd.info is in Arabic (Default) plus English, French and Spanish versions. Considering this, Spanish doesn't seem to be anything special to official departments of the SADR a part from the fact that it has many Spanish sympathizers and that Spain is the former colonizer. --Tachfin (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I pass all the links of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic in Spanish, if you want I can attach more media in Spanish language, newspapers, magazines, NGO and various organizations ........ all in Arabic and Spanish Language. Enciclopediaenlinea (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the nonsense that Spanish should be included has been put to Bed. Spanish has no more status than German in SADR. None. 84.203.65.158 (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The use of the Spanish is also in the infobox of Western Sahara, would by that much disucusión if it is properly referenced? 164.73.84.23 (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Spanish IS an official language at the Sahrawi Republic. For example, that was stated in 2008 by the chief of the II Sahrawi Military Region (Tifariti) here. Why should he lie about that?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Art. 3: Arabic language is the official national language." That is the Constitution of SADR; this question is not in doubt or up for discussion. Spanish is no more official than French or German. Only Arabic is official. Please stop acting like a troll. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929131616/http://www.sabcnews.com/south_africa/general/0,2172,134161,00.html to http://www.sabcnews.com/south_africa/general/0,2172,134161,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Abkhazia infobox RfC
Due to a similarity in topics, editors here are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abkhazia. CMD (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Too many pictures
This article has too many pictures, could some of them be removed? Vyvek (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The main problem is the West Sahara Conflict infobox. As this article is not about the conflict but is instead part of the background articles, it should probably be removed, however a wikilink to the main article should be introduced to the lead given its importance. CMD (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Legal problem
The page states that the spanish sarah is now part of the sarawi arab republic... though it isn’t. The part should be: Now part of: Morocco (claimed by the SAR) Waffleduffle (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , Morocco occupies ~75%, the SADR controls the rest. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Sahrawi Refugee Camps
I'm sorry, the Sahrawi camps are not refugee camps, but 'Concentration camps', Polisario is acting as in the old Soviet times, an hegemonic totalitarian only party, and keeps on lacking a viable or human proposal for the people they had taken out of their roots, their lifestyle, their traditions. Is the former KGB agent Vlad Putin and the nostalgics of Soviet times thinking in having a return of social-communist Algeria, with a coast in the Atlantic ocean? The NATO won't consent this, the Algiers and Russian government has no force to back this, nor a valid reason that is not delusional, and the only victim is the Sahrawi people, under over 50 years of manipulation and sufferings. Enough! Agur. Gesund + — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hijuecutivo (talk • contribs) 14:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , What do you expect to happen because of this post? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Official lenguages
Why do you include the French version? French is not an official of the SADR. Sahrawi languages ​​are Arabic (Hasaniya) and Spanish.

---El francés no es oficial de la RASD. Los idiomas saharauis son el árabe (hasaniya) y el español--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayeri2003 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced population claim
The infobox implies that there live 100,000 people in the area controlled by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Looking at Google Maps, that seems quite unlikely, since it seems to be almost all unpopulated desert. If nobody objects, then this unsourced information should be removed. Thue (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The infobox footnote notes that the 100,000 refers to displaced people living in the Tindouf refugee camps, which are run by the Polisario Front. CMD (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

UN Buffer zone
There is some unsourced and potentially terribly misleading information (and maps) here. The zone in Western Sahara that is outside of the Moroccan controlled areas (east of the Moroccan Western Sahara Wall) that the Polisario claims as the "Liberated Territories", is actually administered by the UN as the Buffer Zone. Not quite sure if the miniscule sand villages like Bir Lehlou and Tifariti that the Polisario lives in should classify as "administer", as there really is not much to administer. Quite frankly, whole W.S. should be shown in light green because the Polisario claim it's entirety just like Morocco does, OR* there is equal treatment for both sides and the controlled territory for each side is acknowledges, not just the SADR's (per NPOV). The Algerian province of Tindouf should also maybe indicated or highlighted because that's where the Polisario's 'government' is situated/headquartered. EdDakhla 07:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Does the SADR still have access to the ocean?
The map seems to show an expansion of the Moroccan Wall which blocks the SADR's access to ocean. Isn't it? 2001:8003:9008:1301:44BF:9024:8F8F:9B8A (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)